Honble PRASAD, J.–This bunch of writ petitions relates to acquisition of land situated in Dungarpur. The land is being sought to be acquired for the Rajasthan Housing Board (referred to hereinafter as `the Board). The acquisition is impugned on the grounds that the notifications under Section 4(5) of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act has not been issued and that the notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act) is beyond limitation. (2). By reply of the respondents, it is clear that the notification under Section 6(1) read with Section 17(4) of the Act has been issued. In view of issuance of notification under Section 6(1) read with Section 17(4) of the Act, the requirement of notification under Section 4(5) of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act is held not to be mandatory. Further, the reply clearly establishes that the notification under Section 6 of the Act was within a period of one year from the date of publication of the notification under Sec. 4. Therefore, the grounds raised in the writ petitions are not available to the petitioners and on this count the writ petitions are liable to fail. (3). The writ petitioners have however made applications for amendment of the writ petitions and by this amendment what has been sought to be incorporated by the writ petition was that the land belonging to certain persons and covered by the notification issued under Section 4 of the Act has been deacquired by the State Government exercising its power under Section 48 of the Act. Even if this amendment is allowed then too it is not for this Court to exercise power of the State Gov- ernment under Section 48 of the Act to order deacquisition of the land of the petitioners. For getting the relief under Section 48 of the Act the petitioners will have to go before the State Government. So instead of allowing the amendment it would be advisable that the petitioners should make an application before the State Government to seek the relief sought for by them under Section 48 of the Act. There- fore, the amendment prayed for is also refused. (4). These writ petitions are pending since 1990-91 and since then there had been an interim order in favour of the petitioners for not dispossessing them from the land in question. There- fore, the amendment prayed for is also refused. (4). These writ petitions are pending since 1990-91 and since then there had been an interim order in favour of the petitioners for not dispossessing them from the land in question. These writ petitions are being held to be of no substance but it is seen that the petitioners want to make an application for deacquisition of the land under Section 48 of the Act. It is thought fit in the interest of justice that if any application is made by the petitioners before the State Government to invoke its power under Section 48 of the Act then the same may be decided by the State authorities within a period of two months. The petitioners will not delay the filing of the applications beyond two weeks from today and would not seek any adjourn- ment or adopt any dilatory tactics in impending the decision of such application and would extend all corporation to the State for getting this application under Section 48 of the Act decided. (5). Since these writ petitions are pending since 1990-91 and the petitioners have continued in possession of the their land under the interim orders of this Cou- rt, it would be in the interest of justice that such restraint be further extended for a period of two months during which the State will decide the applications moved by the petitioners under Section 48 of the Act. (6). With these observations, these writ petitions are held without substance and are dismissed as such.